|
Post by kungfuzu on May 6, 2022 20:21:25 GMT -8
I downloaded this collection a week or so back and started reading it shortly thereafter. I have long been a fan of Cambridge histories and so far, this one has not disappointed. This edition was originally printed in 1911 thus it will not contain the most up-to-date information available. In my opinion, that "loss" is more than compensated for by the way the history is handled/presented. There is no Marxist slant, no PC crap, no woke wonkism. It is pure history written in a straightforward manner without any of the cant one so often encounters in recently written "history" books., Volume 1 is titled: "The Christian Roman Empire and the Foundation of the Teutonic Kingdoms." In the first chapter "Constantine and His City," the author H.M. Gwatkin starts by writing, "The first question that has to be considered in laying down the plan of a Medieval History is, Where to begin? He goes on to give various earlier and later dates which are used and says that the one most often used, 476 i.e. the end of the Western Empire, is "precisely the one for which there is least to be said." He tells the reader that "In truth, the precise beginning of Medieval History is as indefinite as the precise beginning of the fog." That being the case, the series will begin with Constantine. "The chief advantage of choosing this epoch is that as the medieval elements were not strong before the fourth century, we shall be able to trace nearly the whole of their growth without encroaching too much on Ancient History." So far, I believe this choice has panned out. The most interesting parts of volume 1, to now, are the chapters which deal with how Christianity grew, was repressed in the late third century and then was declared by Constantine as a "recognized" religion. The book then goes into how Constantine needed to bring about a resolution to the different Christian strands in order to help bring about order in the empire. The chapter regarding the Council of Nicaea is perhaps the best explanation I have ever read regarding the various divisions within Christianity and how important it was to bring some sort of agreement, or at least to dampen disagreement, within the Church. These were to be discussed and resolved by a grand council called by the emperor. This was held in Nicaea, and from that council, held in A.D. 325 came the Nicaean Creed, which in its original, or somewhat amended, form is still in use today in most Western denominations. The main point of contention around which discussions whirled was the nature of Christ. At the time, Arianism, maintained that "the Son of God cannot be either eternal or equal to the Father." This was very different from the concept of Christ held by many in the West. In the end, and this took a couple of centuries, Arianism lost out and the Trinitarian view, presently accepted by the Latin Catholic Church as well as most protestant churches, won out. Not only was the question of the nature of Christ settled, but the nature of the Holy Spirit was also hashed out and became doctrine. The long-term effects on Christianity and its theology were profound. I can highly recommend chapters 4, 5 and 6 if one is interested in how the early Church developed and grew.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 7, 2022 12:47:42 GMT -8
Sounds like a deep read. What occurred to me was the significance of Constantine and the Nicene Creed. Perhaps it was one of the places in history where you could draw a clear line between before and after. And I look at our own time and see how basically we are living through the anti-Nicene-Crede (dissolution of faith). From our perspective, we don't (or I don't) see a clear line drawn in the sand. But we might kinda see the Second Vatican Council and the advance of Freudianism/Darwinism/Marxism as perhaps a distinct line in the sand that separates homo sapien from homo economicus....the material man (if "man" can still be used) whose purported belief in "science" is really the dishonest creed of the tranquilized man who lives by base and simplistic impulses but imagines that his own shit doesn't stink.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 7, 2022 14:28:50 GMT -8
Actually not. I have read a fair amount on the subject. Will Durant covers it in one of his volumes in The History of Civilization. But I was immediately struck by the way the Cambridge History writer puts it in such a clear and understandable way, and then connects it to Constantine's problems/goals and the empire.
It probably is from our perspective, but the author demonstrates how the internal disagreements continued for decades/centuries until Arianism was basically defeated around the eighth or ninth century. Various Germanic tribes were the main proponents of it from about the beginning of the sixth century. I believe the Visigoths, Vandals and Lombards were all Arians at one time. As I recall, it was the conversion of the Franks to Trinitarian Christianity which did much to finish Arianism.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 7, 2022 15:43:27 GMT -8
The current debate is over whether it's "The Father, Son, and Holy Marx." Pope Francis is as loony as a jaybird. We can't fast-forward ahead to see how all this works out. But there are signs of the foundation of Western Civilization crumbling. The Russians are too stupid and vulgar to fill the gap. But the Chinese could long-term be ruling the earth in 75 years.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jun 25, 2022 13:26:16 GMT -8
I am well into the second volume of this history and, by chance, just finished the chapter on Roman Law. The author deals with the various areas of the law and some of its origins in the days of the Republic. But he mainly deals with the state of the law in the fourth and fifth centuries. He explains how the law developed and spends some time on the Code of Justinian which reorganized, edited and ordered much of old Roman law. It can be considered the foundation of Western law. (English Common Law was less effected, but was still influenced by it.) I found the law of wills and contracts the most interesting. One might be surprised how long back much of our law goes and how the human condition is basically unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jul 8, 2022 20:31:53 GMT -8
The following information is from the Cambridge Medieval History Collection vol.II. It is a little bloody and perhaps a little academic, but is a good general synopsis of how power works. And this is just how the elites act among themselves/family. How much worse have they treated the rest of us throughout history?
Clovis I, king of a Salian Frank tribe is considered the founder of France and put the Merovingian dynasty on the throne. He lived from around AD 466 to AD 511. After inheriting the throne from his father, he waited 5 years and then proceeded on a reign of terror and bloodshed to consolidate his power. He attacked and slaughtered other Salian Franks, Ripuarian Franks, Visagoths, Gallo-Romans, Burgundians, Alemans and others. When it suited his aims to get rid of other Salian kings he, “by means of a series of assassinations … got rid of the Salian kings, Chararic and Ragnachar, and the two brothers of the latter, Richar and Rignomer.”
He killed, tricked, cheated and betrayed his way to the top, but since he had converted to Catholicism, as opposed to Arianism (which most Germanic tribes were), he was revered by the Church. Gregory of Tours passes on what some bishop said about Clovis’ victories. “Thus day by day God brought low his enemies before him, so that they submitted to him, and increased his kingdom, because he walked before Him with an upright heart and did that which was pleasing in His sight.” A rather “singular reflection” as the writer in the Cambridge Medieval History Collection observes.
Clovis’ sons Theodoric (Thierry), Clodomir, Childebert, and Chlotar considered his kingdom an inheritance and divided it up.
Chlodomir died in 524 and Childebert and Chlotar murdered his children in order to divide his kingdom.
Theodoric died in 534, his son Theudibert in 548 and his son Theodebald in 555 of debauchery.
Childebert died in 558 thus leaving only Chlotar. His son rebelled against him, but was defeated, after which Chlotar had him shut up in a hut with his wife and children and had it burned down.
Before this Chlodomir, Childebert and Chlotar had invaded Burgundy, defeated its ruler Sigismund, and had him, his wife and children thrown into a well.
Chlotar’s sons, Charibert, Guntram, Sigebert and Chiperic divided his kingdom and started on each other. Sigebert and Chilperic were bitterly jealous of each other constantly trying to steal land from each other. Guntram played a balancing act between the two. As is common in families, wives helped to complicate matters.
Sigebert married the daughter of a Visigoth king, which irritated Chilperic who, although espoused to a woman named Audovera, repudiated her and had been living with a serving woman named Fredegund. To match Sigebert, Chilperic then married the same Visigoth king’s older daughter, but once her treasures were secured she was found strangled in her bed. Chilperic then married Fredegund and had Audovera executed
The struggle between Sigebert and Chilperic continued, with Sigebert getting the better of it, when he was assassinated by two slaves sent by Fredegund. Sigebert’s wife Brunhild, escaped from Chilperic’s clutches and fought back while protecting her son Childebert II. I could go on, but will stop there.
My point is that such are the types who throughout history have grabbed and held on to power. They are unscrupulous and murderous in gaining and holding power. But in a couple of generations they most often become decadent and debauched, if no less murderous and unscrupulous.
We should not forget this. If further proof is needed, I could supply further examples from England, Rome, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Renaissance Italy, Byzantium, Africa, the Middle East, the Asian Steppe, the Ottoman Empire, the Aztecs and on and on.
Today, our betters’ methods are somewhat different, somewhat more genteel, but do not doubt that if they believe it necessary, they will remove the velvet glove from the iron fist very quickly. This is why it is necessary for all people to remain ever vigilant. Never give up the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 6, 2022 15:26:48 GMT -8
I am presently about 30% of the way through the series, which means I am reading volume III. Each major subject is given a separate chapter, which covers the subject's development over a longer span of time. As the book moves from broad subject area to broad subject area, it is not exactly chronological in structure. The reader my end a chapter on the Eastern Roman Empire at about AD 700 and the next chapter regarding the Franks may start at around AD 370.
The chapter regarding the origins of Islam was particularly interesting. Mohammed's life is explored as well the situation in Arabia during his lifetime. The author did not gloss over facts. It is impossible to deny that Mohammed was a killer and raider. In Mohammed's defense, the author does point out that just about every leader in Arabia at that time was of the same type.
Mohammed made a virtue out of this situation by saying that attacking and robbing non-Muslims was not only the duty of a Muslim, but that if a Muslim died while engaged in such theft, and murder, one was going straight to heaven as a religious martyr. A win-win situation for those Bedouin.
No doubt, others throughout history have raided, murdered and raped claiming the furtherance of their religious beliefs as a basis. I have earlier pointed out the savagery of Clovis and his gang. But I have never come across any other creed which praised theft and murder as part of its basic tenets. One supposes that part of the reason for this is, most likely, the fact that it was a religion which arose among a primitive tribal people in which theft and blood feuds were endemic. Raiding the caravans of others was considered as valid a business action as hostile corporate takeovers are today.
I think the most telling thing about Islam is the fact that only one of the first four caliphs, who came after Mohammed, died from natural causes. The rest were murdered. So much for the "Religion of Peace." This bloodshed went on for some time and resulted in the Shia and Sunni split.
The author of the chapter about Islam believes the cause for the rapid expansion of Islam was less about the religion and more about the unification of the restless Arabs tribes. Once these were brought under control and given licence to kill, rape and pillage, they were primed to be released against the Eastern Roman and Persian Empires, which had worn themselves out by continual wars against each other. Apparently, the part of the Persian Empire today known as Iraq fell so easily that it was something of a surprise. The Muslim's real concentration had been on Syria and that area. In all places which fell to the Muslims, locals helped them (to one degree or another) get rid of their previous rulers. Apparently, the Berbers put up a big fight before accepting Islam.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 10, 2022 6:49:10 GMT -8
Islam: Not so much a religion as it is an enterprise for murder and plunder.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 3, 2023 10:44:09 GMT -8
I have decided to post a few excerpts from this collection, as an example of how people and the world do not change. This one deals with the races in the Hippodrome which aroused great passion in the population. Think of the race in the movie Ben Hur, but much more violent. It should be noted that bloody riots sometimes broke out between the Greens and Blues. In fact, one riot became a threat to the Emperor and was put down with great loss of life. Sound familiar? World Cup Soccer. NFL.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 3, 2023 14:35:54 GMT -8
He obviously would understand Seahawk fans. Or perhaps not. I distinguish them from, say, Steelers fans or Chicago Bear fans. Those fans are sports fans: partisan, bold, and loud. They would have loved the hippodrome contests. Bread and circuses.
But Seahawk fandom is much more in line with a secular religion. Or a fashion. It's a latte and circuses. Let's put it this way: If you have no grand Theory of Life that includes things larger than yourself (god, for instance), it seems inevitable that people will (in the words of Chesterton) put their belief in anything.
This is a very subjective thing. But note that I've lived through the ups and downs of the Seattle Supersonics and Mariners. We're talking about bona fide sports fans. They do exist here, and plenty of them. But the Seahawks seems to have been adopted as some kind of rainbow-colored ornament without the rainbow colors. It's something neutral and safe that everyone can root for, so you see Seahawk flags in places you would have never expected. A flag. A flag, for god's sake. A flag on a long staff at the very front (the one time I visited) of a very expensive piece of waterfront property of a well-off client. And there is Seahawks paraphernalia all over the Northwest. It's really obnoxious.
Once again, I distinguish this from, say, the Cheese Heads of Wisconsin. I believe Packer fans are fans of football and it's not just a substitute rainbow-league religion. Jesus, we should aspire to something a little more honest and manly like the hippodrome.
But I digress. Keep us appraised of any more AWWs (ancient words of wisdom).
And he spelled theatre correctly. My spell checker is obvious an uncouth libtard.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 3, 2023 14:41:50 GMT -8
That sorta blows my theory a little. I figure the riots break out so easily there because soccer has to be the most boring sport to watch on God's green earth. And I'm going to assume the events in the hippodrome were great spectacles. I know we Americans are thought of as uncouth and unsophisticated in the refined world of European better-than-thou. But I do at times think there is something fundamentally wrong with the people on that continent.
As for the NFL, ESPN, Disney, Budweiser, and many others, they literally can go to hell. We'd be better off without them.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 3, 2023 17:34:28 GMT -8
Even those of us who learned some European History in school, are often ignorant of the influence the Eastern Roman (Byzantium) Empire had on the world up until its fall to the Turks in AD 1453. To give a small idea of the importance of the place, I will quote some lines from volume IV of the Cambridge History. I hope the above gives the reader some idea of how great the Byzantine civilization was. Constantinople was the greatest city in the world, with the possible exception of Baghdad. The rest of the world wondered at her greatness.
My later posts will demonstrate something of the greatness and then decline of the place. It is often said that America should study the decline of the Roman Empire for an idea of what is in store. Although this saying does not explicitly include Byzantium, I believe there is as much, or more, to be learned from this civilization as there is of Rome itself.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 4, 2023 8:41:38 GMT -8
Constantinople attracted people from around the world.
Even the Anglo-Saxons from England came to Constantinople to serve in the Varangian Guard. Harald Hardrada, the Norwegian king who in 1066 invaded England only to be defeated by Harold Godwinson, who was himself defeated by William the Conqueror some days later, had served in the Varangian Guard.
Sounds somewhat familiar. Like America, during much of the twentieth century, Constantinople was the magnet of the world. Of course the Byzantine magnet was effective for almost one thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 4, 2023 11:08:17 GMT -8
The concentration of power is well known to present problems to a state. Here is a wonderful description of this phenomenon in Byzantium. And what was the result of this? Does this sound like the present? The last paragraph brings to mind two groups. The first, our government officials and the deep-state elite. The second, the Chinese. I have often noted that the Chinese seemed to have a philosophy, or at least an operating procedure based on “why make things simple if you can make them complicated?” It was like they were all lawyers. It is not for nothing that many historians have compared the Byzantine court to the Chinese court.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 4, 2023 11:29:40 GMT -8
It is remarkable, and generally overlooked, that Byzantium survived a thousand years after Rome fell. Certainly I've never given this era much thought. When most of us think of the eastern empire it's through the word, "byzantine," and any connection to that empire is peripheral, if understood at all.
I'll have to look up and see what documentaries are available on this. Sometimes Amazon Prime has some good ones, although finding them can be a bit...byzantine.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 4, 2023 11:35:50 GMT -8
Yes, that does sound like the present. Forget about Biden and the Democrat Party, who certainly are covered under that description. But it seems a better fit for all the YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram "influencers" who are (or seem to be) "worthless spirits" who are led by a few who think they are superior and certainly have no room for scruples outside of a woke nostrum here or there. And mediocrity is written on their crown.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 4, 2023 12:27:22 GMT -8
Interestingly, women played a greater role in the Byzantine court than in those of the West.
Would anyone reading this deny that America is in a similar state where open corruption has spread throughout society?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 4, 2023 18:48:31 GMT -8
When our supposed "betters" provide such a poor example, the heathens find all the more reason to be unsubtly black and the rest of society slouches.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,045
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 5, 2023 15:15:03 GMT -8
There isn't much to be immediately found on Roku for the Byzantium Empire. There's a movie about two chick vampires who move to England called "Byzantium." But I'm pretty sure that's not going to tell me much about the eastern half of the Roman Empire. I did find what they call a "podcast" by searching Roku for "Byzantium." There is one called "Byzantium: Last of the Romans." The guy giving the narration sounds reasonably interesting. He starts out talking about a French writer and translator, Théophile Gautier, who made a visit to Istanbul in 1852. That seems a bit late to be commenting on it, but I'll see where it goes. He apparently got interested in the city's history and wrote a book about it.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 5, 2023 16:30:41 GMT -8
I will have to look on Roku as well, but have found something on YouTube. The link is to the 1st of several videos issued by Flash Point History about the Byzantine Empire. This video begins around AD500. I have found three other videos which follow on this video. This video is 1 hours and 12 minutes long. There is a lot of animation, but it is not cartoonish. The narrator is calm and I have not heard any nonsensical history so far. One of the things which is clearly shown during this video is the way in which commoners could and did achieve the highest positions in the Empire. Another is the stress on how religious questions played a very important role in Byzantium politics, not just in religion. Justin and Justinian I think it is necessary to go back to the reign of Constantine the Great i.e. AD306-337 if we want to gain a full understanding of the Eastern Empire.
|
|